|
I am mostly a social liberal. So are most atheists I know, who are often libertarian or simply bash the Religious Reich more than they do corporate crooks. While I would certainly support a candidate who opposes tax cuts over a candidate who does not, all other things being equal, this issue is secondary to my main concerns, namely separation of church and state, gay rights, abortion, the war, and patriotism. While my opposition to patriotism is not shared by many atheists, who try to show that atheism is not an ounce unpatriotic than religion (and actually, they're right, because patriotism is slavery to the country, whereas religion puts god over country), my other four main issues are, in that order.
Now, I don't claim to speak for every other atheist in the USA, but I'd like to get one thing straight: atheists, needless to say, overwhelmingly support Newdow vs. Congress, Murray vs. Curlett, etc. Atheists also vote overwhelmingly Democratic, although they tend to register Independent more than other religious groups, and although the only parties now that care about them - us - are the Greens and the Libertarian, but definitely not the Democrats. Prior to Newdow vs. Congress, I would say that the Democratic party was to soem extent more pro-separation and pro-atheist than the Republican party. However, afterward, I realized that I was wrong; there is only one main party on that issue, namely the Republicratic party.
The Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the resolution, and would've voted 100-0 had fanatic Jesse Helms not been in hospital. The House voted 426-5 (or 426-4, I can't remember). Among the 100 Senators and 426 Congressmen are many who are praised for having a spine and for voting for unpopular ideas - Feingold and Wellstone, for example, in the Senate. Kucinich voted to condemn Newdow vs. Congress, although he has an excuse, namely that Cleveland is a fundamentalist haven. Pelosi voted to condemn, even though San Francisco would vote for a Green before it voted for a Republican, plus the city is more pro-atheist than most others.
So, all Democratic presidential contenders who had the chance to vote to condemn did so. Three did not get the chance: Sharpton, who I bet would've voted for it; Moseley-Braun, who'll probably drop out of the race before the California primary; and Howard Dean, who I suspect would've voted against, even though I'm not really sure. So, in order to compare the Dems, I'll have to rely mostly on statements rather than votes and policies. In that respect, Lieberman is not Bush-lite, but rather Bush is Lieberman-lite; since I'd rather not vote than vote for someone who thinks I have no morals, I guess that he's out. We're left with 6 candidates (I won't vote for Sharpton because of his, um, inflammatory history on race relations), of whom the only one I know supports separation of church and state in his talk is Dean, who supports the freedom not to worship and has said of himself that he's "fairly secular."
I'm not stating this as a Dean-worship thing. If he turns out to be a fundie, I'll ditch him for Kucinich; if he does that after the primary, I'll vote Green just for the insult; if he does that after he's elected president, I'll vote Green in 2008 just for this broken promise. All I'm saying is that the Democratic wing of the Republicratic party feels free to ignore a demographic that consistently votes for it, and that is larger than the other two heavily demographics that do so as well (Jews and blacks), and that I'm not going to vote for its candidate in 2004 unless he shows that he supports atehists' rights and separation of church and state. I won't vote for Bush, because the guy is as bad as Lieberman. I will, however, withhold my vote from both wings of the Republicratic party unless either of them - i.e. the Democratic wing - gives me any reason to vote for it other than "we're not the other party."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
